Hans V. Anderson Jr.’s Curious Definition of Failing

I suppose it could be possible for UTOPIA opponents and critics to make their case without lies or misrepresentation, but much like discovering how many licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop, the world may never know. The latest example is an op-ed published in the Daily Herald from Orem City Council Member Hans V. Anderson Jr. In addition to many of the usual talking points, he makes multiple assertions that contradict what we already know about the deal with Macquarie.

For starters, he’s stating that Macquaries investment would be a loan. No published source has stated this at all. In fact, the published information is that the money would be a required network investment similar to what Google did in Provo. If it’s actually a loan, how is it that Anderson is the only one reporting such, especially when numerous city council members and mayors were at the same meetings?

Anderson then asserts that a proposed utility fee is actually intended to repay Macquarie for their investment. His own source, however, show that it is to retire the existing bond service. Instead of covering bond service from the general fund, it would be a clear line item spread across all Oremites, similar to how Provo assigned the debt service from iProvo to everyone in the city, subscriber or not. It seems very curious that he would contradict himself to make the utility fee into something it is not.

So what, exactly, is failing? UTOPIA has met or exceeded every financial goal under it’s current five-year plan. It’s now bringing in a partner to finish the network, relieve the cities of shouldering any operating expense shortfall, and likely provide some revenues to reduce or retire the proposed utility fee. I don’t see anything for someone who wants to lessen Orem’s financial load to be upset about at all. Why is Hans furious to the point of lying?

This is what happens when UTOPIA opponents want failure at any cost. Any success, no matter the size, must be turned into failure in order to prove their larger ideological point. Instead of retreating to the absolutely defensible and logical “I don’t like this approach” position, they have to cling to the “it just doesn’t work” one, evidence be damned. I hope the citizens of Orem will ask themselves which kind of elected official they want running their city.

2 Responses to Hans V. Anderson Jr.’s Curious Definition of Failing

The real issue is that all the opponents of UTOPIA are either paid by Comcast, or have something to lose (usually financially). The reality is that Utah is on the bleeding edge of technology, and fiber is the next step in telecommunications. Wireless can’t do what fiber can, at least not in it’s current specification, and anyone who says it can needs to open a physics book.

UTOPIA is going to be huge for Utah, and I guarantee other states will follow. What should have happened is instead of the big 2 (Comcast/CenturyLink) we have here in Utah fighting this network, they should have embraced it and sold customers cheap internet. Competition breeds creativity, innovation, and quality. Without it (at least in the network space) we have companies like Comcast, and CenturyLink.

As for the article, why lie about stuff? Anyone doing research will find the inaccuracies quickly, and other articles are going to contradict everything with even more proof.

We have already seen Utopia for the financial failure it has been. Just look at the debt! We could make this even and give any entity that deals with Orem residents the authority to shut off your water if you don’t pay your bill. Right, fair is fair. Lets just get Google fiber in here. They are just down the street and they actually provide jobs. If anyone is lying here its usually the city. Leaving out facts could also be considered a lie. I do believe that Utah is on the leading edge of technology and we shouldn’t let just any ‘ol citizen oppose what the government wants.